Co‐opting Authority and Privatizing Force in Rural Africa: Ensuring Corporate Power over Land and People

Abstract

Large‐scale land investment projects in sub‐Saharan Africa have received substantial criticism for their negative local impacts, but few studies discuss specifically their application of corporate power on the ground. This article provides an examination of such application in rural Sierra Leone. The article describes how one corporation both directly and indirectly co‐opted authority and privatized force in order to wield power over the land and people. The data illustrate how local authorities and security actors were incentivized to defend the interests of the corporation as opposed to the local communities they supposedly represent and protect. Such processes ensured corporate power not only over the land but also over the local population. The findings, therefore, demand more robust and multidimensional accountability mechanisms to avoid the corporate acquisition of power in rural Africa. Such mechanisms would demand: (1) that investing corporations be more informed about local sociocultural, economic, and political dynamics on the ground; (2) that funders and local governments fund, report on, and enforce more regular, culturally sensitive, and independent assessments of project impacts; and (3) that funders, governments, corporations, and customary elites be held accountable for the negative impacts of such projects by international and national civil society organizations.

The company is here to do goodness to us: Imaginaries of development, whiteness, and patronage in Sierra Leone's agribusiness investment deals

“…Around the time that some of the deals in Port Loko were made (2011/2012), Addax offered some benefits to the local communities in which it operated (Millar, 2016). Elders were more likely to draw on this knowledge, than on the knowledge that Addax was also fostering grievances, creating problems between and within families, excluding women, or making it hard for some people to get enough to eat (Millar, 2015(Millar, , 2016(Millar, , 2018Yengoh et al, 2015;Yengoh and Armah, 2016). That the 'good' rumours travel more readily than the bad in terms of the company's operations underlines how powerful these imaginaries are, and how much hope people have for them.…”

“…Notably, it is not only whiteness that is tied to imaginaries of bringing development. Other studies of land deals in Sierra Leone and other parts of West Africa point to the role of customary authority and national elites in facilitating, coercing, or forcing communities to give their land to investors (Bottazzi et al, 2016; Ferme, 2018; Grajales, 2020; Hennings, 2018; Millar, 2018; Ryan, 2018). Within the scope of this paper we do not unpack all of the various ways in which customary authorities and elites leverage forms of power to get communities and land owners to agree.…”

Corporate Repertoires of Control and Performances of Power in a Contested Land Deal in Senegal

“…Second, land control over large areas implies exerting power over local populations (Chung 2020;Millar 2018), an undertaking that is not as straightforward as it may seem. Power is a relational process.…”

“…A key facet of power consists of shaping "perceptions, cognitions and preferences" to forestall the formation of grievances (Lukes 2005:28). The diverse forms of power are reflected in the manifold strategies employed by land investors in their relations with local populations, ranging, for instance, from the use of physical force to keep resistance in check, to the provision of training programs for generating alternative sources of income, to promises of financial compensation for the loss of land (Ahmed et al 2017;Chung 2020;Millar 2018). These strategies are unevenly successful, as people can not only resist land companies but also try to further their own interests when partaking in these projects.…”

From Bullets to Banners and Back Again? The Ambivalent Role of Ex-combatants in Contested Land Deals in Sierra Leone

“…Apart from increasing inequality, such commercial land deals have reinforced nepotism and the role of the paramount chiefs -exposing communities to corruption, coercion, and violence. The sudden influx of money has weakened local customs while further increasing class and intergenerational tensions (see also Hennings, 2018a;Millar, 2016Millar, , 2018b.…”